Dr Clare Craig Profile picture
Oct 5, 2024 18 tweets 5 min read Read on X
The latest Pfizer safety report shows a massive cardiovascular signal

and also shows some very odd data.

Let's start with the first. 🧵
NHR and PHARMO are different European databases.

The total number of cardiovascular events of any type works out at a risk of

1 in 264 for NHR
and
1 in 362 for PHARMO Image
By contrast the claimed risk of severe covid was reduced by

1 in 2403 for NHR
and
1 in 5181 for PHARMO Image
Pfizer admit there is a signal in the PHARMO database but they have a plan to make it disappear...

"it could be possible to model some constructive bias analysis to correct this in the final analysis."Image
If you had a new set of aircraft and there was a report of a problem from one country - would you ignore it because the others had not reported a problem?

Would you fudge the data from the concerning country by modelling it to look like the other countries?
There are differences between these datasets.

People in the PHARMO dataset were healthier - they had a far lower incidence of death, for example.

Signals are easier to see in healthier datasets because they are less likely to be lost in the background noise. Image
You may wonder why the deaths are higher in the unvaccinated.

The well recognised healthy vaccinee effect means that those who are about to die reject the vaccine and end up inflating the mortality of the unvaccinated.
However, Pfizer did not do analysis having excluded this period.

They also did no analysis by age group except for myocarditis.

Because of low background rates in younger age groups signals would be more obvious if these were analysed separately.
One way to reduce the risk of this bias would be to only look at people who were sick in the week before vaccination or matching (if unvaccinated).

This was the plan (although maybe they meant it as an exclusion criteria?): Image
Until the EMA stopped it.

They did not ask for analysis only of those who had contact with health care system prior to injection or matching! Image
Now for the odd data.

Given the healthy vaccinee effect, the unvaccinated should have higher rates of any condition in the first 60 days.

But they do not. Image
What is more odd is that the number of people is huge at the beginning but rapidly reduces.

This is because the unvaccinated are matched to the vaccinated. When they get vaccinated that pairing is dropped.

That should mean huge numbers of events in the first 60 days. e.g. Image
Independent evidence is consistent in showing a higher rate of covid in the first two weeks.

Pfizer claims the opposite (except for PHARMO)! Image
Despite the clear issues there are still really concerning signals like this one:

They weren't even looking at myocarditis / pericarditis until asked to in December 2021! Image
Independent scientists need to be doing this work not companies with a vested interest.

But governments have made the data available only to the latter!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Clare Craig

Dr Clare Craig Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClareCraigPath

Feb 9
Remember the Beta variant in South Africa?

Remember how AstraZeneca said their vaccine was only 10% effective against it?

They blamed the variant but it has nothing to do with that...🧵

bbc.co.uk/news/world-afr…
All the vaccines ever did was make people immune suppressed for two weeks.

The consequence was that those who were susceptible to a particular variant had their infections earlier than they would have.

You can measure after that point and get an illusion of benefit.
This trick only works if you vaccinate during a wave.

For the UK - we were fast getting to those most susceptible to dying. Our death wave looks like a witch's hat on top of Europe's because of the earlier infections.

N.B. the impact was felt by the unvaccinated too. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jan 17
How do we how well the covid vaccines performed?

We can look at this question from multiple angles and see. 🧵
First, there was the "secondary attack rate".

When someone tested positive this measure could be taken of the percentage of household contacts that later tested positive.

If vaccines reduced risk of infection this should have fallen.

It did not. Image
Another measure is how many people developed antibodies before and after vaccine. Image
Read 15 tweets
Jan 17
"Cancer" is a big bucket and some diagnoses are much more consequential than others.

This needs drilling down.
e.g. death rates are much more comparable Image
Colon cancer
5.2 for men in 2017
5.3 in 2021 Image
Read 21 tweets
Dec 15, 2024
The last 4 years has been a period of modelling based on assumptions laundered through the medical literature and called "The Science".

If you thought the "real world" evidence was more reliable think again. 🧵
@Jikkyleaks has exposed a massive fraud at the heart of the covid literature.

Instead of using the difficult, fragmented and hard to collate data from the actual real world, pharma sponsored datasets which contain modelled synthetic data were used.
Like all models this synthetic data will have been based on prior assumptions:

assumptions like vaccines preventing 96% of infections.

The consequent results stand out ludicrous disprovable claims.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 9, 2024
Today saw the release of minutes for the working group set up to advise MHRA on the covid vaccines.

They knew the issues but ignored them...🧵
On 27th November they briefly discussed a lack of any potential benefit for the under 50s but quickly concluded that there was a favourable risk/benefit for anyone aged over 16 years!

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67503fbc…Image
They made the case that the already infected should be injected because of lack of evidence of risk!

What about the fact they didn't need it! Image
Read 25 tweets
Dec 4, 2024
I have been working on the MHRA funding model today.

It's awful.

There was no money to keep the public safe.

🧵
86% of MHRA funding comes from fees.

bmj.com/content/377/bm…

But MHRA do not set the fees.
MHRA cannot adapt the fees to the circumstances.
The fees are set by legislation.

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/190/… Image
To take an extreme case, Herceptin was approved (by EMA) based on a trial of under 500 women.

If that happened today the fee would be £102,000 for MHRA licensing.

What would that cover?

gov.uk/government/pub…
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(